Human rights and wrongs

We sat down for a drink and to catch-up on work. We argued and discussed different projects Sam was busy with at the time. I ordered my usual gin and tonic and he asked for a savanna light; then as if to make it lighter, went on to dilute it with water. We looked at him perplexed and asked why on earth anyone would add water to savanna and his response was: ‘I am trying to watch my drink’. Without much debate this was understood by all who sat at the table that night. The subject was closed and we moved on to other pressing and exciting matters. The land question, agrarian reform in Zimbabwe, political transition and the land grabs dogging the continent.

What is but a small blot to a man’s image, especially one whose ideas had shaped your thinking for as far you could remember? Studying sociology I had become curious about the land question in Africa. In a conversation with my father, I had asked him about this. We are told the San are the oldest inhabitants of Southern Africa and yet in Gantsi my mother’s home area most of the San settlements were to be found on the outskirts of the budding town, on the fringes of national parks, the biggest cattle ranches in the country and so forth. And my father had said the San villages encircle the Gantsi Town, they are observing the movements of the new occupants of their land and one day they will reclaim what is theirs. There a curiosity was born; I wanted to understand how dispossession of this magnitude takes place and what leads to a state where injustice is really a normalisation of the abnormal. Under the guidance of my mentor and supervisor Dr Onalenna Selowane, I went about reading what I could get my hands on to learn about land, rights, politics, identity and social justice - and right up there were the works of Prof Sam Moyo.

You see Sam was a great thinker and fearless scholar. A political economist of note. At the height of the political crisis in Zimbabwe and the Fast Track Land Reform Programme or invasions if you wish, Sam was amongst the few scholars who acknowledged that land reform in Zimbabwe had benefitted small scale farmers, the rural poor. In his various writings he argued that the popular assumption about failed land reform in Zimbabwe was wrong. Instead, land reform programmes despite benefiting the elite had been redistributive. The poor had gained more than others and the extent of such benefit had been wide enough to trigger significant progressive changes in the agrarian structure.

To quote Prof Moyo writing about the land reform discourse in the early 2000s this is what he had to say;

‘the debate has focused on the immediate political motives of the FTLRP, selectively highlighting its aspects of ‘violence’, ‘disorder’, and ‘chaos’, claiming that the ruling Zanu PF elite and the state instrumentalised the FTLRP for electoral support and that only Zanu PF cronies benefited. By neglecting to examine the character and scale of redistribution of the FTLRP, and not looking at it from a longer historical perspective, the literature on Zimbabwe’s agrarian reform is deprived of a crucial viewpoint[1].

Prof Moyo drawing over three decades of research went about to set the record straight. This was a highly unpopular view but he stuck to it. Sadly enough it is the work of Ian Scoones that is often cited to tell the story of the success of the land reform in Zimbabwe and its impact on the lives of small-scale farmers. The New York Times even ran a story back in 2012 about the new black tobacco farmers, beneficiaries of the fast track land reform process – the title was ‘In Zimbabwe Land Takeover, a Golden Lining’[2] Sam Moyo did not glorify the fast track land programme though he also critiqued the land reform process and pointed out its flaws, acknowledging the uneven distribution of land among beneficiaries of the land reform programme. He acknowledged that some especially the political elite had received larger allocations than others. This in turn influenced skewed access to farming services and infrastructure. But that said, the bottom line was the peasants had benefitted. While the article in the NYT was celebrated, Scoones widely quoted, Prof Moyo received wide criticism for the same views. We don’t acknowledge and celebrate African scholarship enough. We second guess our own and often we are quick to label and discredit them.

The Agrarian Institute was born and Prof Sam Moyo’s legacy lives on

But that was Sam’s work on Zimbabwe. He dedicated his scholarship to other parts of the continent too. He was a Pan-Africanist of note. He served as the President of the Council for the Development of Social Research in Africa (CODESRIA) from 2009–2011). He was a research professor at the Zimbabwe Institute of Development Studies, and taught at the Universities of Calabar in Nigeria as well as Zimbabwe and served on the boards of many organisations.

With most of his achievements what stood out for me was the African Institute of Agrarian Studies. Prof Moyo set up the Institute in late 2002. The main objective of taking on such a bold step was to influence land and agrarian reform policies through multidisciplinary social science research, policy dialogues, training and information. Sam never lost sight of one thing he was passionate about. This would not be an institute that would do research for the sake of it. He ultimately wanted to mobilise scholars to provide advice and mediate in the policy making processes so as to improve rural livelihoods. He often lamented the limited relevant knowledge and training programmes to tackle the contemporary agrarian crisis that is emerging in the continent. The low agricultural productivity, food insecurity, unemployment, poverty, and unsustainable natural resources utilisation, while redressing the growing loss of rights to land, food and a clean environment. To respond to this challenge, Prof Moyo argued that a critical mass of analysts and civil society advocates needs to be built to influence shifts in the policy environment. This should also promote civil society organisations to better support the advocacy of those whose rights are infringed upon. His argument was the current knowledge production and policy analysis institutions have, due to their limited disciplinary curricula failed to fill this gap. They serve too few potential agrarian analysts and focus on limited market and business models. Their learning processes cater for a narrow range of views and exclude the perspectives of those who use political economy and rights-based approaches to policy making and advocacy.

Out of this critique, the Agrarian Institute was born and its flagship programme the Agrarian Summer School was launched. The Summer School contributes to filling this gap by providing training to postgraduate students and civil society activists in Africa, and promoting research relevant to understanding and addressing agrarian justice and inequitable resource rights on the continent. This programme was a reflection of Sam’s commitment to building skills for critical thinking and mentoring young scholars. He drew on his social capital to bring together some of the best brains in the field who spent days of their time teaching young scholars and providing them with feedback on their research. Guest lecturers have included the likes of Prof Paris Yeros University Federal do ABC Brazil, Prof Dzodzi Tsikaka University of Ghana and current President of Codesria, Praveen Jha and Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi among others. Partners in the Agrarian Consortium that emerged out of these efforts include the Rhodes University, Haki Ardhi, University of Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) and Civil Society Organizations, HAKIARDHI The Land Rights Research & Resources Institute (Tanzania), and Trust for Community Outreach and Education (South Africa) and other in research and training of postgraduate students, with the support of key research institutions in Brasil (Federal Universities of ABC and Brasilia) and in India (Jahwaral Nehru University Centre for Economic Studies and Planning). The Agrarian Summer School is widely recognised in the region and internationally, there is growing demand within the Global South for participation in it. Many who have been through his hands have gone off to do great things.

The last time I saw Sam was in August and over a glass of wine, lots of laughter and this time nothing was diluted, we plunged straight into another heated debate over a highly political and controversial issue. That of Cecil the lion. That evening many questions were asked, whose narrative is it? What was the impact of the international campaign on the livelihoods of rural communities who rely on tourism and sustainable use of wildlife resources for their local economies? Where was the voice of the African scholars and practitioners in the conservation field? What do communities have to say, where is the platform? The questions went on and on. That was Sam; there was laughter, sipping and critical thinking.

Sam you are one of whom it can be said that “ akekho ofana nawe” (there is none like you). Rest in eternal peace dear brother, colleague, mentor and comrade!!! You planted many ideas and these will live on!

On a chilly Monday morning on February 16th, 2009, I walked into the New Government Complex in Harare’s Central Avenue. As I strode for the very first time down a poorly lit corridor, eyes strained and necks stretched behind wide open doors to catch a glimpse of the newcomer with a reputation for short temper. I was ushered into a comfortable office that was to become my home for the next four and a half years.

I had just become Zimbabwe’s eighth Minister of Finance.

In 2008, the country had held a general election. Our opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), had narrowly won control of the lower house of Parliament.

The Presidential election, on the other hand, had to go to a second round, which turned into a violent and chaotic farce. This prompted our party to pull out of the runoff. Robert Mugabe, the 84-year-old president of Zimbabwe, was controversially re-elected amid bloodshed and intimidation.

Faced with a Zimbabwe on the brink of a political and economic precipice that threatened to plunge the region into turmoil, regional leaders pushed for a political settlement.

The country’s economic meltdown had already been weighing on its neighbors, and in March 2007, regional leaders had mandated South Africa to facilitate dialogue amongst Zimbabwe’s three main political parties.

Following the controversial 2008 election, South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki, used that mandate to push for a settlement amongst the Zimbabwe National African Union-Patriotic Front, or ZANU (PF), led by Robert Mugabe, the MDC led by Morgan Tsvangirai and a smaller formation of the MDC led by Arthur Mutambara, a former student leader, Rhodes Scholar and Oxford-trained scientist.

On September 15th, 2008, the political parties agreed in principle to form a government of national unity (GNU). As a result of protracted and often vicious disagreements, it took five months for that awkward union to produce an actual government.

It was on the basis of this power-sharing agreement that I found myself at the Ministry of Finance on February 16th, 2009—an environment far removed from the law practice that I had run for the previous 18 years.

This hadn’t been an easy decision. As the MDC’s Secretary General, I was opposed to the idea of being in government with ZANU (PF), but on January 30th, my party had decided otherwise. Some friends argued that I should be part of the government and make the best of it.

Following years of struggle and hardship, my family, on the other hand, was urging me to take a break from politics. In any case, the Justice portfolio felt like the only reasonable fit for a lawyer like myself, and it had been allocated to ZANU (PF).

On February 8th, Morgan Tsvangirai and I met for dinner at a Chinese restaurant in Harare. Over rice and dumplings, he convinced me to take on the Finance portfolio. With the Zimbabwean economy in freefall since 1997, it promised to be the toughest job in the world.

Any illusions I may have had were shattered on my very first day at the Ministry of Finance (MOF). Following introductions to the senior management team, the Principal Director (Budgets), Pfungwa Kunaka, pointed out that the following day was payday for civil servants.

“How much do we have to pay?” I asked.

“$30 million, sir” he responded.

“How much do we have?”

He shook his head in surrender. “$4 million, sir.”

“So where are we going to get the remaining $26 million?” I asked with a half-smile, beginning to understand what I had just gotten myself into.

Woman casts her vote during Lesotho’s national election in Qoaling village (http:/www.biznews.com/)

The February (28) 2015 election is the negotiated solution to the political stalemate that had hit the coalition government in a much more apparent manner since the beginning of 2014. Since the inconclusive parliamentary election that was held in May 2012 in Lesotho, which produced the coalition government between All Basotho Convention, Lesotho Congress for Democracy, Basotho National Party, it has always been clear that the coalition government was riddled with many challenges that might prohibit it from completing its five-year term. Its inherent challenges have always been many and varied. However, key amongst them has always been that the coalition government was based on the threadbare majority of 1 seat in the National Assembly. The strained relations caused government to be dysfunctional, thereby necessitating the external intervention from SADC. Thus, election came as a negotiated outcome of the SADC mediation between political players.

Thus, this piece provides the analytical updates of the election starting with the 27th February 2015 – the day before election. It provides the overview of the key electoral dynamics of the day and the implication for the credibility of the March 28th election.

Readiness of Independent Electoral Commission.

The 27th February 2015 was the final day for the electoral logistics by the IEC. IEC was concluding the distribution of the electoral material to all the voting stations in the eighty (80) constituencies across the country and finalising deployment of polling staff. This process was done with the involved and oversight of the Logistics Committee of political parties within the IEC. This is the standing committee of political parties contesting election in Lesotho. It is part of the various committees established by IEC in order to comply with its legal obligation to involve stakeholders in the preparations and running of electoral processes.

Under normal circumstances, deployment of personnel and distribution of material is not a big issue, as this would be done with assistance from the Air Wing department of the army – especially when it comes to far-flung voting stations that are inaccessible by road. In all the previous election, this has been the norm, and it didn’t bring up any major political disputes. This year, the distribution of election material by the army became a major political issue, because of the perceived partisan nature of the army and its role in the preceding political challenges. However, the matter was mediated by SADC Troika and the solution was that the army would not provide any security services during election but it would still support with the flying of election material. As per agreement, the army was confined to the barracks save for the Air Wing department. This solution appears to have been acceptable to all players, as there were no major rumblings about the participation of the army to that extent. So the process went fairly smoothly.

Security

Security was a major issue for this election. One of the major issues that laid bare the dysfunctional nature of the coalition government was the management of the security agencies – the army and the police. The two key security agencies were perceived as partisan, whereby Lesotho Defence Force (LDF) was viewed as sympathetic to the DC/LCD tacit alliance and the police was viewed as aligned to ABC/BNP tacit alliance. Thus, few weeks before Election Day, ABC/BNP alliance was of a view that while the LDF still remained without clear control from the Prime Minister, a credible election was impossible. Matters came to a head two weeks before the election when LDF issued a statement that it will deploy and maintain a visible presence across the country until Election Day ‘for purposes of maintaining law and order’. The matter even became a subject of political negotiation under the SADC Troika whereat it was agreed that on the election day the army would be confined to the barracks and security to the polling processes would come from the Lesotho Mounted Police (LMPS) with the support of police from SADC countries.

So on the 27th February 2015, the LMPS was finalising its deployment of personnel to all the voting stations across the country. The process was fairly smooth as there were no reported security issues related to the poll. The LMPS was assisted by the election security officers recruited by IEC.

International Community and Election Observation

The 2015 election in Lesotho is largely a product of the support of the international community to Lesotho as the decision to go to election was brokered under the hand of SADC, which even provided the Facilitator in the person of the Deputy President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa who facilitated all the major stages in the run-up to election. So the international community had a special interest in the election and the locals were keen to receive sustained support from the international community throughout the electoral period, and even beyond.

In the run-up to election, most of the international organisations to which Lesotho is member deployed election observers. The organisations that deployed missions to Lesotho are African Union, Commonwealth, SADC, SADC Parliamentary Forum and the international NGOS like Electoral Institute for Sustainability of Democracy (EISA) and SADC NGO Council. All these international observers deployed their missions to the various parts of the country on the 27th February. In similar manner, the local observers also finalised their deployments on that day. Local election observers largely came from local NGOs, the church and the media.

General Political Environment and the Media

In terms of the electoral law, election campaigns must be stopped 24 hours (two days) before Election Day. In other preceding elections, politicians normally find it hard to comply with this rule as they would be doing the underground campaigns and using media in a veiled way to campaign. This normally causes rumblings from political competitors. This time around the political players by and large observed this rule. Even the media, which ordinarily is very partisan and inflammatory about election process observed the rule.

Conclusion

It could be concluded that on the 27th February 2015, a day before the polling day, the environment and preparations were all set for a credible election on the 28th. There were no obvious threats in relation to either security or logistics that could erode the credibility of the election.

Every morning when I want to avoid traffic and having to pass through many traffic lights I take a suburban route that passes right in front of Nelson Mandela's home in Houghton. So this morning I did the same, even though I had woken up much earlier and there was clearly no traffic as yet. The power of habit. I had to wake up early and get to the office to think and write about a 'big idea' that my boss had asked me to submit for our 2015 strategy, having submitted one the previous day which didn't meet the mark.

But approaching the Mandela home this morning, I see something different. Lots of cars parked on either side of the road and people milling around, reminiscent of the weeks and months before his death when the paparazzi literally camped outside his house, waiting to break the news about his death. Those blood-thirsty paparazzi!

So what was happening at the Mandela home today? Was it some post-death ceremony taking place the way we do back home a year after the death of a loved one? Do they do that as well here in South Africa, I wonder. I'm sure they would, but that's something they would perhaps do in Qunu and not here in the suburbs ... Suddenly it dawned on me that today is Mandela Day, and that all these people had woken up early to pay their homage to the great icon and perhaps fulfill their 67 minutes of community service. So today, many South Africans of different color and creed, and people around the world will put aside a few minutes of their time to think about Mandela and do something positive in recognition of his contribution to the freedom of this great nation.

Many should be struggling to find that big idea for something to do with their 67 minutes that would capture the essence of this important day, just like me struggling to come up with a big idea for my boss. I started reflecting about this. Mandela didn't have big money to back up his big ideas. I'm sure he didn't even have a budget to back it up. But we do have big money to support our big ideas ... I began to think about what it is that makes an idea a big idea, and I decided it's too early to come up with an answer to this.

I started to think about the other question my boss had posed - what would success look like after implementing that big idea? And I think about Mandela's big idea of a free and democratic South Africa, and I start to imagine that what we are living in South Africa today should surely be the picture of the success of Mandela's big idea - a free, plural, diverse and democratic society. But is it that simple? Is that picture a universal picture of the reality of the new South Africa? How does the mother of a child that dies after falling into a pit latrine at school read that picture? Or the parents whose children miss almost an entire year's learning because somebody decided to dump textbooks in a river? Or communities that still use open toilet and bucket systems and spend most of the year burning tyres and blocking roads to draw attention to poor service delivery? The jobless youth? And the families who lost breadwinners at the Marikana shooting? Of course this contrasts with the picture of the new South Africa for that businessman who is now able to spread his wings and set shop wherever he wants in the world after the collapse of apartheid.

I realise painting a picture of the success of a big idea isn't that easy after all - even for Nelson Mandela's big idea which would look so obvious...

So instead of thinking about and rewriting that big idea, I thought I would spend my first 67 minutes of the day writing these few paragraphs in the hope that they will not only remind us of that truly phenomenal individual but encourage us to keep searching for even bigger ideas!

Voting in Malawi got off to a chaotic start this morning due to lack of materials such as the voters’ roll, ballot papers, ink, pens, and ballot boxes. This resulted in many polling centres opening late. There have also been reports of rioting, burning of some polling stations and destruction of polling materials by frustrated voters. Several polling stations had not opened by noon. The capacity of the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) to manage the logistics had always been an area of concern.

The MEC was frantically printing the final voters’ roll yesterday afternoon. It also emerged that ballot papers were in short supply especially for the local government elections. This state of affairs confirmed the elections situation room analysis that had highlighted as a concern that insufficient attention was being paid to the local government component of the election. The MEC hastily convened a stakeholder meeting to decide how to respond to the emerging challenges. In the final analysis the MEC took the decision to proceed with the election.

Given that a majority of polling stations did not open on time, the MEC extended poll station closing time from 18:00 to 21:00. Presiding officers were also allowed discretion to decide if polling should be extended beyond 21:00. The immediate concern was whether adequate arrangements had been made regarding lighting if people are voting in the night. Whether there are enough ballot materials for those stations that are going to open late, remains an issue.

Judging by long queues that were being reported on by the election situation room observers deployed on the ground as well as other observers, it appears that there was large voter turn-out. Earlier there were reports of disturbances that included burning down of polling stations, rioting, looting, and suspension of voting in some stations. The disturbances were largely attributed to frustration by voters at polling stations opening late.

The situation room faced a number of challenges especially with transmission and the processing of data. On Monday internet for most of the service providers slowed dramatically. When the more than 4000 observers deployed by the situation room started transmitting data it became clear that the majority of them were not following the observer checklist but tended to be focusing on incidents. The situation room task force was able to convene a press briefing during which they highlighted concern about the chaotic manner in which the election had proceeded. They also then met with the MEC to convey these concerns. Another press by the situation room task force briefing is planned for tomorrow.

Counting of the ballots is now underway. Given the late closing of the polling stations, it’s not clear at this stage when vote counting will be completed. While the pre-electoral environment was peaceful and citizens were able to exercise meaningful choice, the shambolic manner in which election day proceedings were conducted undermined the credibility of the electoral process. Given that the electoral process remains too close to call, the critical issue is going to be whether contestants are going to accept the outcome.